I have to say, I joined this group, guessing at exactly what it would
contain, and I was, sadly, correct.
Atheists groups like this are 99% angry people who aren't actually
interested in intelligent discussion, but are trying to bait a non-
atheist into a flame war. There is SOME intelligent discussion here,
but it's not worth looking throu all the rubbish to find it. These
furious people know that they'll always win because the people they
wish to attack will not respond "in-kind," that is, abjectly hateful
language, cursing, name-calling, and outright tirades. The picture
you are painting of atheists is that you're all hateful old codgers
hiding in your basement screaming at the screens as you type holes
through your keyboard with every angry jab.
The atheists I've met in real life were thoughtful and weren't
arrogant enough to claim that they were actually no more than
agnostics.
Those of you flaming about logic-this and logic-that should consider
that no conclusion can be made without the facts. When, exactly, did
you get that last iota of information that decided it all for you?
Of course, you'll flame me now, but that won't bother me one bit,
because upon my first read of this group, I realized there was not
enough intelligent conversation here to warrant dealing with the
hateful, unthinking (however, all-knowledgeable) codgers hacking at
their keyboards in their dark basements.
Maybe the group is misnamed? It's a one-sided battle from what I can
see here. Hmm... Maybe "Atheism Completely And Utterly Annihiliates
The Christian Girly Men With Their Mighty Nuclear-Powered Tongues"
Of course, no self-respecting Christian would waste his time on you
any more than you'd waste your time peeing on a burning Christian...
On Dec 1, 2:17 pm, ObservantEye <mike.sh...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I have to say, I joined this group, guessing at exactly what it would
> contain, and I was, sadly, correct.
It seems that you came into this group with preconceptions. In my
experience people will usually find evidence to support their
preconceptions, and ignore evidence against it. Perhaps an open mind
would have been better?
> Atheists groups like this are 99% angry people who aren't actually
> interested in intelligent discussion, but are trying to bait a non-
> atheist into a flame war.
I'd like to know what your basis is for this. Even if you perceive a
lack of intelligent discussion, you should recognize that this does
not necessarily reflect a lack of interest. After all, it takes two
people to hold an intelligent discussion and I often find myself
lacking a partner on the theistic side. The tactics and ideas that the
Christians adhere to out and out forbid it. Even the more intelligent
Christians still adhere to flawed arguments and logic to make their
points, refusing to admit even when shown conclusively how they are
wrong. Exactly how do you propose intelligent discussion develop
against such blatent ignorance? And, for those of us genuinely
interested in intelligent discussion, why should that not make us
angry?
> There is SOME intelligent discussion here,
> but it's not worth looking throu all the rubbish to find it. These
> furious people know that they'll always win because the people they
> wish to attack will not respond "in-kind," that is, abjectly hateful
> language, cursing, name-calling, and outright tirades. The picture
> you are painting of atheists is that you're all hateful old codgers
> hiding in your basement screaming at the screens as you type holes
> through your keyboard with every angry jab.
It always amazes me that someone could come here and lay such
accusations against atheists and remain completely oblivious to the
same type of activity on the other side. It's evident enough not to be
missed by someone without preconceptions who is reading this group.
That forces me to conclude that either your preconceptions have
clouded your judgement, or you are simply being dishonest in not
including theists in your assessment.
> The atheists I've met in real life were thoughtful and weren't
> arrogant enough to claim that they were actually no more than
> agnostics.
That is probably because people most commonly use the terms "atheist"
and "agnostic" incorrectly. Here's a tip: if you do not answer the
question "Does god exist" with a "Yes", then you are an atheist.
Period.
The internet allows for people to explore avenues unavailable to them
in real life and I consider that a benefit. In America, especially,
there is a social stigma about being a non-theist that would prevent
the tope of colaboration and expression of ideas you find here.
> Those of you flaming about logic-this and logic-that should consider
> that no conclusion can be made without the facts. When, exactly, did
> you get that last iota of information that decided it all for you?
I don't know. I didn't write it down. The facts, however, force me to
conclude that Yaweh, God and Allah do not exist.
> Of course, you'll flame me now, but that won't bother me one bit,
> because upon my first read of this group, I realized there was not
> enough intelligent conversation here to warrant dealing with the
> hateful, unthinking (however, all-knowledgeable) codgers hacking at
> their keyboards in their dark basements.
> Maybe the group is misnamed? It's a one-sided battle from what I can
> see here. Hmm... Maybe "Atheism Completely And Utterly Annihiliates
> The Christian Girly Men With Their Mighty Nuclear-Powered Tongues"
> Of course, no self-respecting Christian would waste his time on you
> any more than you'd waste your time peeing on a burning Christian...
> I have to say, I joined this group, guessing at exactly what it would
> contain, and I was, sadly, correct.
> Atheists groups like this are 99% angry people who aren't actually
> interested in intelligent discussion, but are trying to bait a non-
> atheist into a flame war. There is SOME intelligent discussion here,
> but it's not worth looking throu all the rubbish to find it. These
> furious people know that they'll always win because the people they
> wish to attack will not respond "in-kind," that is, abjectly hateful
> language, cursing, name-calling, and outright tirades. The picture
> you are painting of atheists is that you're all hateful old codgers
> hiding in your basement screaming at the screens as you type holes
> through your keyboard with every angry jab.
> The atheists I've met in real life were thoughtful and weren't
> arrogant enough to claim that they were actually no more than
> agnostics.
> Those of you flaming about logic-this and logic-that should consider
> that no conclusion can be made without the facts. When, exactly, did
> you get that last iota of information that decided it all for you?
> Of course, you'll flame me now, but that won't bother me one bit,
> because upon my first read of this group, I realized there was not
> enough intelligent conversation here to warrant dealing with the
> hateful, unthinking (however, all-knowledgeable) codgers hacking at
> their keyboards in their dark basements.
> Maybe the group is misnamed? It's a one-sided battle from what I can
> see here. Hmm... Maybe "Atheism Completely And Utterly Annihiliates
> The Christian Girly Men With Their Mighty Nuclear-Powered Tongues"
> Of course, no self-respecting Christian would waste his time on you
> any more than you'd waste your time peeing on a burning Christian...
On Dec 1, 11:17 am, ObservantEye <mike.sh...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I have to say, I joined this group, guessing at exactly what it would
> contain, and I was, sadly, correct.
> Atheists groups like this are 99% angry people who aren't actually
> interested in intelligent discussion, but are trying to bait a non-
> atheist into a flame war. There is SOME intelligent discussion here,
> but it's not worth looking throu all the rubbish to find it. These
> furious people know that they'll always win because the people they
> wish to attack will not respond "in-kind," that is, abjectly hateful
> language, cursing, name-calling, and outright tirades. The picture
> you are painting of atheists is that you're all hateful old codgers
> hiding in your basement screaming at the screens as you type holes
> through your keyboard with every angry jab.
I can kind of see how you might get that impression but sometimes when
the person you're chatting with keeps lying, changing the subject,
evading questions and generally acts like a prick, after a while it
can irk even the most pleasant of us, and bring us to the point at
which we'll use a bit of colorful language. I'd love an "intelligent
discussion" and regularly try to have them with newbies, but the vast
majority of theists newbies and old regulars alike really don't seem
to be anything more than dishonest assholes...and at some point you've
just got to call them on it -- if for no other reason that to attempt
to make them see their dishonesty and hope that they will change their
ways.
> The atheists I've met in real life were thoughtful and weren't
> arrogant enough to claim that they were actually no more than
> agnostics.
Actually atheism and agnosticism describe different qualities and are
not mutually exclusive by any means.
> Those of you flaming about logic-this and logic-that should consider
> that no conclusion can be made without the facts. When, exactly, did
> you get that last iota of information that decided it all for you?
You actually need to use logic to make sense of the facts before you
-- thats why we use it.
> Of course, you'll flame me now, but that won't bother me one bit,
> because upon my first read of this group, I realized there was not
> enough intelligent conversation here to warrant dealing with the
> hateful, unthinking (however, all-knowledgeable) codgers hacking at
> their keyboards in their dark basements.
> Maybe the group is misnamed? It's a one-sided battle from what I can
> see here. Hmm... Maybe "Atheism Completely And Utterly Annihiliates
> The Christian Girly Men With Their Mighty Nuclear-Powered Tongues"
Of course it's a one-sided battle; when it comes to the God hypothesis
there isn't the slightest bit of evidence and the atheists aren't
making any unwarranted claims while theists are...
I mean, come on, how can you respect yourself and believe you are a wretched
sinner who deserves nothing more than an eternity in hell at the same time?
Unless you twist the definition of "respect" extremely (which fits in with
the Christian, m.o., actually--see e.g. Christian "love").
On Dec 1, 1:19 pm, "Turner Hayes" <lordlacol...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I mean, come on, how can you respect yourself and believe you are a wretched
> sinner who deserves nothing more than an eternity in hell at the same time?
*good* *point*
But most of the time I don't buy that they really see themselves as
sinners.
On Dec 1, 2:54 pm, Drafterman <drafter...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Dec 1, 2:17 pm, ObservantEye <mike.sh...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > I have to say, I joined this group, guessing at exactly what it would
> > contain, and I was, sadly, correct.
> It seems that you came into this group with preconceptions. In my
> experience people will usually find evidence to support their
> preconceptions, and ignore evidence against it. Perhaps an open mind
> would have been better?
Ah, the open mind. I came here with hope. Read most of the other
responses and you'll see where that went...
As for evidence; go to any other "discussion" group with the same
topic anywhere else on the internet. This is a clone. Scientific
American Magazine's website is wrought with the same attitudes,
whereas I held high hopes for discussion.
> > Atheists groups like this are 99% angry people who aren't actually
> > interested in intelligent discussion, but are trying to bait a non-
> > atheist into a flame war.
> I'd like to know what your basis is for this. Even if you perceive a
> lack of intelligent discussion, you should recognize that this does
> not necessarily reflect a lack of interest. After all, it takes two
> people to hold an intelligent discussion and I often find myself
> lacking a partner on the theistic side. The tactics and ideas that the
> Christians adhere to out and out forbid it. Even the more intelligent
> Christians still adhere to flawed arguments and logic to make their
> points, refusing to admit even when shown conclusively how they are
> wrong. Exactly how do you propose intelligent discussion develop
> against such blatent ignorance? And, for those of us genuinely
> interested in intelligent discussion, why should that not make us
> angry?
Because emotions cloud the discussion. They are not "persuasive."
Both sides should debate their side, attack the other side with proofs
and facts. (that'll get a major response!) If you were standing face-
to-face with someone, would you be shouting and jabbing them in the
chest with your finger? Demeaning someone into submission isn't the
same as persuading. If someone refuses to use any logic at all, the
response isn't to go maniacal. Neither side has accomplished a
thing. You've lost your integrity either way.
> > There is SOME intelligent discussion here,
> > but it's not worth looking throu all the rubbish to find it. These
> > furious people know that they'll always win because the people they
> > wish to attack will not respond "in-kind," that is, abjectly hateful
> > language, cursing, name-calling, and outright tirades. The picture
> > you are painting of atheists is that you're all hateful old codgers
> > hiding in your basement screaming at the screens as you type holes
> > through your keyboard with every angry jab.
> It always amazes me that someone could come here and lay such
> accusations against atheists and remain completely oblivious to the
> same type of activity on the other side. It's evident enough not to be
> missed by someone without preconceptions who is reading this group.
> That forces me to conclude that either your preconceptions have
> clouded your judgement, or you are simply being dishonest in not
> including theists in your assessment.
Aaahh, but read the threads and look for the baiting. So many people
just spoiling for a fight--from either side, but definitely there's a
more aggressive side.
> > The atheists I've met in real life were thoughtful and weren't
> > arrogant enough to claim that they were actually no more than
> > agnostics.
> That is probably because people most commonly use the terms "atheist"
> and "agnostic" incorrectly. Here's a tip: if you do not answer the
> question "Does god exist" with a "Yes", then you are an atheist.
> Period.
a⋅the⋅ist
noun
a person who denies or disbelieves the existence of a supreme being or
beings.
ag⋅nos⋅tic
noun
1. a person who holds that the existence of the ultimate cause, as
God, and the essential nature of things are unknown and unknowable, or
that human knowledge is limited to experience.
2. a person who denies or doubts the possibility of ultimate
knowledge in some area of study.
> The internet allows for people to explore avenues unavailable to them
> in real life and I consider that a benefit. In America, especially,
> there is a social stigma about being a non-theist that would prevent
> the tope of colaboration and expression of ideas you find here.
Now THERE's an interesting topic altogether. That could be a very
interesting subject, unfortunately off-topic. Is this healthy? If we
spend enough time venting this online, is it just healthy venting or
is it going to change the way we act in real life? Interesting
point. Also, the term, "tope of collaboration" is an interesting way
of putting it if it means what I think you intended. The problem
isn't so much that the social stigma disallows discussion, but it does
frown upon shouting matches with people who would rather shout you
into submission rather than persuade you. Sometimes people have to
realize that they won't agree, but can explore the other's beliefs in
an effort to learn. I've found that the people I disagree with most,
philosophically speaking, have ended up being my closest friends
because we made an effort to understand each other, knowing we
couldn't persuade the other. Abusing someone for not agreeing with
you does not make you more than you were before the discussion.
> > Those of you flaming about logic-this and logic-that should consider
> > that no conclusion can be made without the facts. When, exactly, did
> > you get that last iota of information that decided it all for you?
> I don't know. I didn't write it down. The facts, however, force me to
> conclude that Yaweh, God and Allah do not exist.
So, you have all the facts? You could make a bundle if you
published. <grin>
> > Of course, you'll flame me now, but that won't bother me one bit,
> > because upon my first read of this group, I realized there was not
> > enough intelligent conversation here to warrant dealing with the
> > hateful, unthinking (however, all-knowledgeable) codgers hacking at
> > their keyboards in their dark basements.
> > Maybe the group is misnamed? It's a one-sided battle from what I can
> > see here. Hmm... Maybe "Atheism Completely And Utterly Annihiliates
> > The Christian Girly Men With Their Mighty Nuclear-Powered Tongues"
> > Of course, no self-respecting Christian would waste his time on you
> > any more than you'd waste your time peeing on a burning Christian...
> It would seem, then, that you lack self-respect.
Yes, I figured I'd check back with this to see if I was right. I have
to admit I wasn't completely correct in my presumption. There's
actually been a few decent responses. Much of it was flame, but
thanks for the glimmer of hope of discussion. You've actually
persuaded me to watch the group a few days in the hope of gleaning a
few tidbits of positive discussion. The problem is that I still have
to deal with the codgers, too, but such is life.
You still had to go with the crowd on that last remark, though. Had
to get that jab in, eh? heheh.
I'd just read flame after flame after flame before I'd posted the
topic. If you can honestly tell me that I was absolutely incorrect
and that this is a friendly, intelligent discussion group, I don't
think you're being quite objective. Read this from both sides. I'm
trying to do that because it'll give me a better perspective, but it's
hard to sympathize with so much anger.
> On Dec 1, 11:17 am, ObservantEye <mike.sh...@gmail.com> wrote:> I have to say, I joined this group, guessing at exactly what it would
> > contain, and I was, sadly, correct.
> > Atheists groups like this are 99% angry people who aren't actually
> > interested in intelligent discussion, but are trying to bait a non-
> > atheist into a flame war. There is SOME intelligent discussion here,
> > but it's not worth looking throu all the rubbish to find it. These
> > furious people know that they'll always win because the people they
> > wish to attack will not respond "in-kind," that is, abjectly hateful
> > language, cursing, name-calling, and outright tirades. The picture
> > you are painting of atheists is that you're all hateful old codgers
> > hiding in your basement screaming at the screens as you type holes
> > through your keyboard with every angry jab.
> I can kind of see how you might get that impression but sometimes when
> the person you're chatting with keeps lying, changing the subject,
> evading questions and generally acts like a prick, after a while it
> can irk even the most pleasant of us, and bring us to the point at
> which we'll use a bit of colorful language. I'd love an "intelligent
> discussion" and regularly try to have them with newbies, but the vast
> majority of theists newbies and old regulars alike really don't seem
> to be anything more than dishonest assholes...and at some point you've
> just got to call them on it -- if for no other reason that to attempt
> to make them see their dishonesty and hope that they will change their
> ways.
> > The atheists I've met in real life were thoughtful and weren't
> > arrogant enough to claim that they were actually no more than
> > agnostics.
> Actually atheism and agnosticism describe different qualities and are
> not mutually exclusive by any means.
> > Those of you flaming about logic-this and logic-that should consider
> > that no conclusion can be made without the facts. When, exactly, did
> > you get that last iota of information that decided it all for you?
> You actually need to use logic to make sense of the facts before you
> -- thats why we use it.
> > Of course, you'll flame me now, but that won't bother me one bit,
> > because upon my first read of this group, I realized there was not
> > enough intelligent conversation here to warrant dealing with the
> > hateful, unthinking (however, all-knowledgeable) codgers hacking at
> > their keyboards in their dark basements.
> > Maybe the group is misnamed? It's a one-sided battle from what I can
> > see here. Hmm... Maybe "Atheism Completely And Utterly Annihiliates
> > The Christian Girly Men With Their Mighty Nuclear-Powered Tongues"
> Of course it's a one-sided battle; when it comes to the God hypothesis
> there isn't the slightest bit of evidence and the atheists aren't
> making any unwarranted claims while theists are...
I have to say this, and I know it'll clump your oats, but the reality
is that atheism is just as much a religion as any other. I have to
say, I've never seen anyone verbally fight for what they want near as
furiously as I've seen atheists do. That may not fit the dictionary
definition of religion, but it has all the same attributes. It's
definitely a belief system, wouldn't you agree?
> On Dec 1, 2:57 pm, Dag Yo <sir_ro...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > On Dec 1, 11:17 am, ObservantEye <mike.sh...@gmail.com> wrote:> I have to say, I joined this group, guessing at exactly what it would
> > > contain, and I was, sadly, correct.
> > > Atheists groups like this are 99% angry people who aren't actually
> > > interested in intelligent discussion, but are trying to bait a non-
> > > atheist into a flame war. There is SOME intelligent discussion here,
> > > but it's not worth looking throu all the rubbish to find it. These
> > > furious people know that they'll always win because the people they
> > > wish to attack will not respond "in-kind," that is, abjectly hateful
> > > language, cursing, name-calling, and outright tirades. The picture
> > > you are painting of atheists is that you're all hateful old codgers
> > > hiding in your basement screaming at the screens as you type holes
> > > through your keyboard with every angry jab.
> > I can kind of see how you might get that impression but sometimes when
> > the person you're chatting with keeps lying, changing the subject,
> > evading questions and generally acts like a prick, after a while it
> > can irk even the most pleasant of us, and bring us to the point at
> > which we'll use a bit of colorful language. I'd love an "intelligent
> > discussion" and regularly try to have them with newbies, but the vast
> > majority of theists newbies and old regulars alike really don't seem
> > to be anything more than dishonest assholes...and at some point you've
> > just got to call them on it -- if for no other reason that to attempt
> > to make them see their dishonesty and hope that they will change their
> > ways.
> > > The atheists I've met in real life were thoughtful and weren't
> > > arrogant enough to claim that they were actually no more than
> > > agnostics.
> > Actually atheism and agnosticism describe different qualities and are
> > not mutually exclusive by any means.
> > > Those of you flaming about logic-this and logic-that should consider
> > > that no conclusion can be made without the facts. When, exactly, did
> > > you get that last iota of information that decided it all for you?
> > You actually need to use logic to make sense of the facts before you
> > -- thats why we use it.
> > > Of course, you'll flame me now, but that won't bother me one bit,
> > > because upon my first read of this group, I realized there was not
> > > enough intelligent conversation here to warrant dealing with the
> > > hateful, unthinking (however, all-knowledgeable) codgers hacking at
> > > their keyboards in their dark basements.
> > > Maybe the group is misnamed? It's a one-sided battle from what I can
> > > see here. Hmm... Maybe "Atheism Completely And Utterly Annihiliates
> > > The Christian Girly Men With Their Mighty Nuclear-Powered Tongues"
> > Of course it's a one-sided battle; when it comes to the God hypothesis
> > there isn't the slightest bit of evidence and the atheists aren't
> > making any unwarranted claims while theists are...
> I have to say this, and I know it'll clump your oats, but the reality
> is that atheism is just as much a religion as any other. I have to
> say, I've never seen anyone verbally fight for what they want near as
> furiously as I've seen atheists do.
> That may not fit the dictionary
> definition of religion, but it has all the same attributes. It's
> definitely a belief system, wouldn't you agree?
No, I do not agree that atheism is a belief system. While atheists
share a non-belief in god(s), my experience has been that our actual
beliefs are varied.
> I have to say this, and I know it'll clump your oats, but the reality
> is that atheism is just as much a religion as any other.
You're right it is a religion just like any other, but I think I'm
going to convert to a different religion pretty soon and I'm wondering
if you'd like to join me in becoming a convert. It's called aGenii-
ism, and the ONLY qualification for joining this religion is that you
don't happen to believe geniis exist -- in fact, if you don't happen
to believe that geniis exist then you're already part of this new
religion.
> I have to
> say, I've never seen anyone verbally fight for what they want near as
> furiously as I've seen atheists do.
Atheists don't "want" anything -- anti-theists, secularists, and
humanists might have a few things they want, but atheists don't.
> That may not fit the dictionary
> definition of religion, but it has all the same attributes. It's
> definitely a belief system, wouldn't you agree?
Oh yeah, it's definitely a belief system. Just like, "my hair isn't
on fire", "I don't believe unicorns exist", and "there isn't an
elephant sitting on me right now" are also belief systems. And
"system" is of course the key word here because there is obviously a
lot of different interconnected beliefs involved.
On Dec 1, 1:54 pm, ObservantEye <mike.sh...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Dec 1, 2:57 pm, Dag Yo <sir_ro...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > On Dec 1, 11:17 am, ObservantEye <mike.sh...@gmail.com> wrote:> I have to say, I joined this group, guessing at exactly what it would
> > > contain, and I was, sadly, correct.
> > > Atheists groups like this are 99% angry people who aren't actually
> > > interested in intelligent discussion, but are trying to bait a non-
> > > atheist into a flame war. There is SOME intelligent discussion here,
> > > but it's not worth looking throu all the rubbish to find it. These
> > > furious people know that they'll always win because the people they
> > > wish to attack will not respond "in-kind," that is, abjectly hateful
> > > language, cursing, name-calling, and outright tirades. The picture
> > > you are painting of atheists is that you're all hateful old codgers
> > > hiding in your basement screaming at the screens as you type holes
> > > through your keyboard with every angry jab.
> > I can kind of see how you might get that impression but sometimes when
> > the person you're chatting with keeps lying, changing the subject,
> > evading questions and generally acts like a prick, after a while it
> > can irk even the most pleasant of us, and bring us to the point at
> > which we'll use a bit of colorful language. I'd love an "intelligent
> > discussion" and regularly try to have them with newbies, but the vast
> > majority of theists newbies and old regulars alike really don't seem
> > to be anything more than dishonest assholes...and at some point you've
> > just got to call them on it -- if for no other reason that to attempt
> > to make them see their dishonesty and hope that they will change their
> > ways.
> > > The atheists I've met in real life were thoughtful and weren't
> > > arrogant enough to claim that they were actually no more than
> > > agnostics.
> > Actually atheism and agnosticism describe different qualities and are
> > not mutually exclusive by any means.
> > > Those of you flaming about logic-this and logic-that should consider
> > > that no conclusion can be made without the facts. When, exactly, did
> > > you get that last iota of information that decided it all for you?
> > You actually need to use logic to make sense of the facts before you
> > -- thats why we use it.
> > > Of course, you'll flame me now, but that won't bother me one bit,
> > > because upon my first read of this group, I realized there was not
> > > enough intelligent conversation here to warrant dealing with the
> > > hateful, unthinking (however, all-knowledgeable) codgers hacking at
> > > their keyboards in their dark basements.
> > > Maybe the group is misnamed? It's a one-sided battle from what I can
> > > see here. Hmm... Maybe "Atheism Completely And Utterly Annihiliates
> > > The Christian Girly Men With Their Mighty Nuclear-Powered Tongues"
> > Of course it's a one-sided battle; when it comes to the God hypothesis
> > there isn't the slightest bit of evidence and the atheists aren't
> > making any unwarranted claims while theists are...
> I have to say this, and I know it'll clump your oats, but the reality
> is that atheism is just as much a religion as any other. I have to
> say, I've never seen anyone verbally fight for what they want near as
> furiously as I've seen atheists do. That may not fit the dictionary
> definition of religion, but it has all the same attributes. It's
> definitely a belief system, wouldn't you agree?
"Self Respecting Christian?"
We have our own self-respecting christian, and really don't need
any more - witness "I am a True Christian" and what he has to say.
On Dec 2, 5:17 am, ObservantEye <mike.sh...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I have to say, I joined this group, guessing at exactly what it would
> contain, and I was, sadly, correct.
> Atheists groups like this are 99% angry people who aren't actually
> interested in intelligent discussion, but are trying to bait a non-
> atheist into a flame war. There is SOME intelligent discussion here,
> but it's not worth looking throu all the rubbish to find it. These
> furious people know that they'll always win because the people they
> wish to attack will not respond "in-kind," that is, abjectly hateful
> language, cursing, name-calling, and outright tirades. The picture
> you are painting of atheists is that you're all hateful old codgers
> hiding in your basement screaming at the screens as you type holes
> through your keyboard with every angry jab.
> The atheists I've met in real life were thoughtful and weren't
> arrogant enough to claim that they were actually no more than
> agnostics.
> Those of you flaming about logic-this and logic-that should consider
> that no conclusion can be made without the facts. When, exactly, did
> you get that last iota of information that decided it all for you?
> Of course, you'll flame me now, but that won't bother me one bit,
> because upon my first read of this group, I realized there was not
> enough intelligent conversation here to warrant dealing with the
> hateful, unthinking (however, all-knowledgeable) codgers hacking at
> their keyboards in their dark basements.
> Maybe the group is misnamed? It's a one-sided battle from what I can
> see here. Hmm... Maybe "Atheism Completely And Utterly Annihiliates
> The Christian Girly Men With Their Mighty Nuclear-Powered Tongues"
> Of course, no self-respecting Christian would waste his time on you
> any more than you'd waste your time peeing on a burning Christian...
The fact that you refuse to be reasonable is exactly why nobody who is
reasonable would piss on you if you were on fire. All reasonable
people would wait until you were dead, and then piss on you. The fact
that Christians bitch about "hateful words" and defend their Bibles is
proof that they encourage entirely what they denounce, and have no
feelings, no brains, no consciences, no ethics, absolutely nothing
that a human would call human. Period.
On Dec 1, 12:17 pm, ObservantEye <mike.sh...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I have to say, I joined this group, guessing at exactly what it would
> contain, and I was, sadly, correct.
> Atheists groups like this are 99% angry people who aren't actually
> interested in intelligent discussion, but are trying to bait a non-
> atheist into a flame war. There is SOME intelligent discussion here,
> but it's not worth looking throu all the rubbish to find it. These
> furious people know that they'll always win because the people they
> wish to attack will not respond "in-kind," that is, abjectly hateful
> language, cursing, name-calling, and outright tirades. The picture
> you are painting of atheists is that you're all hateful old codgers
> hiding in your basement screaming at the screens as you type holes
> through your keyboard with every angry jab.
> The atheists I've met in real life were thoughtful and weren't
> arrogant enough to claim that they were actually no more than
> agnostics.
> Those of you flaming about logic-this and logic-that should consider
> that no conclusion can be made without the facts. When, exactly, did
> you get that last iota of information that decided it all for you?
> Of course, you'll flame me now, but that won't bother me one bit,
> because upon my first read of this group, I realized there was not
> enough intelligent conversation here to warrant dealing with the
> hateful, unthinking (however, all-knowledgeable) codgers hacking at
> their keyboards in their dark basements.
> Maybe the group is misnamed? It's a one-sided battle from what I can
> see here. Hmm... Maybe "Atheism Completely And Utterly Annihiliates
> The Christian Girly Men With Their Mighty Nuclear-Powered Tongues"
> Of course, no self-respecting Christian would waste his time on you
> any more than you'd waste your time peeing on a burning Christian...
Mate, if a person was burning, I wouldn't be hanging around
to see if s/he was a Christian or not. I'd be in there helping to
put out the fire. I think you condemn yourself by your own words
and what is truly in your own self-deluded mind. I'll be happy if
you don't return. Goodbye!
Oh, you are an arrogant prick to condemn all atheists as being
similar. Nothing further from the truth. Just as in Christianity -
there are no two people who are entirely similar - you demean
the God you claim to serve. Would s/he be so stupid as to
make creation all the same? The last time I looked out the
window (just now) I witnessed a huge diversity.
Duh, go and get yourself an education - you need one, or
the research shows you will likely develop Alzeimer's
Disease - oops, my apologies, maybe you already have it.
That would certainly explain your post. Enjoy your unremarkable
life.
On Dec 2, 5:17 am, ObservantEye <mike.sh...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I have to say, I joined this group, guessing at exactly what it would
> contain, and I was, sadly, correct.
> Atheists groups like this are 99% angry people who aren't actually
> interested in intelligent discussion, but are trying to bait a non-
> atheist into a flame war. There is SOME intelligent discussion here,
> but it's not worth looking throu all the rubbish to find it. These
> furious people know that they'll always win because the people they
> wish to attack will not respond "in-kind," that is, abjectly hateful
> language, cursing, name-calling, and outright tirades. The picture
> you are painting of atheists is that you're all hateful old codgers
> hiding in your basement screaming at the screens as you type holes
> through your keyboard with every angry jab.
> The atheists I've met in real life were thoughtful and weren't
> arrogant enough to claim that they were actually no more than
> agnostics.
> Those of you flaming about logic-this and logic-that should consider
> that no conclusion can be made without the facts. When, exactly, did
> you get that last iota of information that decided it all for you?
> Of course, you'll flame me now, but that won't bother me one bit,
> because upon my first read of this group, I realized there was not
> enough intelligent conversation here to warrant dealing with the
> hateful, unthinking (however, all-knowledgeable) codgers hacking at
> their keyboards in their dark basements.
> Maybe the group is misnamed? It's a one-sided battle from what I can
> see here. Hmm... Maybe "Atheism Completely And Utterly Annihiliates
> The Christian Girly Men With Their Mighty Nuclear-Powered Tongues"
> Of course, no self-respecting Christian would waste his time on you
> any more than you'd waste your time peeing on a burning Christian...
On Dec 1, 4:49 pm, ObservantEye <mike.sh...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Dec 1, 2:54 pm, Drafterman <drafter...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Dec 1, 2:17 pm, ObservantEye <mike.sh...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > I have to say, I joined this group, guessing at exactly what it would
> > > contain, and I was, sadly, correct.
> > It seems that you came into this group with preconceptions. In my
> > experience people will usually find evidence to support their
> > preconceptions, and ignore evidence against it. Perhaps an open mind
> > would have been better?
> Ah, the open mind. I came here with hope. Read most of the other
> responses and you'll see where that went...
Why should they concern me in my conversation with you? Why should
they concern you in your conversation with me? It seems to support my
conclusion that you are simply looking for anything to support your
preconceptions.
> As for evidence; go to any other "discussion" group with the same
> topic anywhere else on the internet. This is a clone. Scientific
> American Magazine's website is wrought with the same attitudes,
> whereas I held high hopes for discussion.
> > > Atheists groups like this are 99% angry people who aren't actually
> > > interested in intelligent discussion, but are trying to bait a non-
> > > atheist into a flame war.
> > I'd like to know what your basis is for this. Even if you perceive a
> > lack of intelligent discussion, you should recognize that this does
> > not necessarily reflect a lack of interest. After all, it takes two
> > people to hold an intelligent discussion and I often find myself
> > lacking a partner on the theistic side. The tactics and ideas that the
> > Christians adhere to out and out forbid it. Even the more intelligent
> > Christians still adhere to flawed arguments and logic to make their
> > points, refusing to admit even when shown conclusively how they are
> > wrong. Exactly how do you propose intelligent discussion develop
> > against such blatent ignorance? And, for those of us genuinely
> > interested in intelligent discussion, why should that not make us
> > angry?
> Because emotions cloud the discussion.
Shouldn't you, then, attack the cause of those emotions, rather than
the emotions themselves?
> They are not "persuasive."
Turn on a TV. Go to a web page. Any advertisement will utilize appeals
to emotion, rather than logically sound arguments and appeals to
intellect? Why? Because it works.
> Both sides should debate their side, attack the other side with proofs
> and facts. (that'll get a major response!) If you were standing face-
> to-face with someone, would you be shouting and jabbing them in the
> chest with your finger?
Nope. Nor am I doing that now.
> Demeaning someone into submission isn't the
> same as persuading. If someone refuses to use any logic at all, the
> response isn't to go maniacal. Neither side has accomplished a
> thing. You've lost your integrity either way.
> > > There is SOME intelligent discussion here,
> > > but it's not worth looking throu all the rubbish to find it. These
> > > furious people know that they'll always win because the people they
> > > wish to attack will not respond "in-kind," that is, abjectly hateful
> > > language, cursing, name-calling, and outright tirades. The picture
> > > you are painting of atheists is that you're all hateful old codgers
> > > hiding in your basement screaming at the screens as you type holes
> > > through your keyboard with every angry jab.
> > It always amazes me that someone could come here and lay such
> > accusations against atheists and remain completely oblivious to the
> > same type of activity on the other side. It's evident enough not to be
> > missed by someone without preconceptions who is reading this group.
> > That forces me to conclude that either your preconceptions have
> > clouded your judgement, or you are simply being dishonest in not
> > including theists in your assessment.
> Aaahh, but read the threads and look for the baiting. So many people
> just spoiling for a fight--from either side, but definitely there's a
> more aggressive side.
I don't doubt it. But remember that when we come to this site we bring
with us our experiences in the real world, where the "aggressive side"
is pretty much the inverse here.
> > > The atheists I've met in real life were thoughtful and weren't
> > > arrogant enough to claim that they were actually no more than
> > > agnostics.
> > That is probably because people most commonly use the terms "atheist"
> > and "agnostic" incorrectly. Here's a tip: if you do not answer the
> > question "Does god exist" with a "Yes", then you are an atheist.
> > Period.
> a⋅the⋅ist
> noun
> a person who denies or disbelieves the existence of a supreme being or
> beings.
> ag⋅nos⋅tic
> noun
> 1. a person who holds that the existence of the ultimate cause, as
> God, and the essential nature of things are unknown and unknowable, or
> that human knowledge is limited to experience.
> 2. a person who denies or doubts the possibility of ultimate
> knowledge in some area of study.
Yes, and most people use agnostic to mean some undecided middle ground
between atheism and theism when, as the definitions show, it is not.
> > The internet allows for people to explore avenues unavailable to them
> > in real life and I consider that a benefit. In America, especially,
> > there is a social stigma about being a non-theist that would prevent
> > the tope of colaboration and expression of ideas you find here.
> Now THERE's an interesting topic altogether. That could be a very
> interesting subject, unfortunately off-topic. Is this healthy? If we
> spend enough time venting this online, is it just healthy venting or
> is it going to change the way we act in real life? Interesting
> point. Also, the term, "tope of collaboration" is an interesting way
> of putting it if it means what I think you intended. The problem
> isn't so much that the social stigma disallows discussion, but it does
> frown upon shouting matches with people who would rather shout you
> into submission rather than persuade you. Sometimes people have to
> realize that they won't agree, but can explore the other's beliefs in
> an effort to learn. I've found that the people I disagree with most,
> philosophically speaking, have ended up being my closest friends
> because we made an effort to understand each other, knowing we
> couldn't persuade the other. Abusing someone for not agreeing with
> you does not make you more than you were before the discussion.
This assumes that the cause of what you perceive to be abuse is the
fact that theists don't agree with us. Again, you are a victim of your
own preconceptions.
> > > Those of you flaming about logic-this and logic-that should consider
> > > that no conclusion can be made without the facts. When, exactly, did
> > > you get that last iota of information that decided it all for you?
> > I don't know. I didn't write it down. The facts, however, force me to
> > conclude that Yaweh, God and Allah do not exist.
> So, you have all the facts? You could make a bundle if you
> published. <grin>
I have enough facts to disprove the existence of the aforementioned
deities. Thankfully one doesn't need *all* possible facts to reach
that conclusion.
> > > Of course, you'll flame me now, but that won't bother me one bit,
> > > because upon my first read of this group, I realized there was not
> > > enough intelligent conversation here to warrant dealing with the
> > > hateful, unthinking (however, all-knowledgeable) codgers hacking at
> > > their keyboards in their dark basements.
> > > Maybe the group is misnamed? It's a one-sided battle from what I can
> > > see here. Hmm... Maybe "Atheism Completely And Utterly Annihiliates
> > > The Christian Girly Men With Their Mighty Nuclear-Powered Tongues"
> > > Of course, no self-respecting Christian would waste his time on you
> > > any more than you'd waste your time peeing on a burning Christian...
> > It would seem, then, that you lack self-respect.
> Yes, I figured I'd check back with this to see if I was right. I have
> to admit I wasn't completely correct in my presumption. There's
> actually been a few decent responses. Much of it was flame, but
> thanks for the glimmer of hope of discussion. You've actually
> persuaded me to watch the group a few days in the hope of gleaning a
> few tidbits of positive discussion. The problem is that I still have
> to deal with the codgers, too, but such is life.
Actually you don't. No one is forcing you to reply to them.
> You still had to go with the crowd on that last remark, though. Had
> to get that jab in, eh? heheh.
I'm sorry if pointing out the logical consequences of your remarks is
a problem.
> I'd just read flame after flame after flame before I'd posted the
> topic. If you can honestly tell me that I was absolutely incorrect
> and that this is a friendly, intelligent discussion group, I don't
> think you're being quite objective. Read this from both sides. I'm
> trying to do that because it'll give me a better perspective, but it's
> hard to sympathize with so much anger.
The fact that your original post here levied complaints against solely
atheists that obviously exist on both sides shows that you aren't
being objective at all. And this is suppose to garner pleasant,
friendly, cheery, responses?
Dictionaries list usages not word meanings. Around here we use the
words atheism, agnosticism, theism, and the greek prefix "a", the way
a philosopher or linguist would use those words. If you want to
ignore those definitions entirely, you are of course welcome to do so,
but take note that as you do that you're engaging in the fallacy of
equivocation; which means that your arguments and statements that rely
on different usages of those words than the one we're discussing will
inevitably be invalid and incorrect.
Sorry, but if you'd like to discuss the nature of those concepts in
philosophically you need to understand how to use those words properly
and not colloquially. And if you'd don't take our advice, and learn
and use those words correctly then you're in no position to whine and
bitch about it when you've get called dishonest, when you're accused
of ignoring our arguments, or when you're accused of being too stupid
to understand what we're talking about -- because you have the whole
of the internet before you to look up these words in a way that makes
sense AND because i'm a nice guy, i'm going to explain them for you
right now.
theism - the the belief that at least one god exists.
atheism - a lack of theism.
agnosticism - the lack of knowledge that at least one god exists.
or more simply:
theists, believe that a god exist
atheists, don't believe that any god exists
agnostics, don't know if any god exists
Assuming you have any desire to be honest you'll go with those
definitions from now on.
On Dec 1, 1:49 pm, ObservantEye <mike.sh...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Dec 1, 2:54 pm, Drafterman <drafter...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Dec 1, 2:17 pm, ObservantEye <mike.sh...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > I have to say, I joined this group, guessing at exactly what it would
> > > contain, and I was, sadly, correct.
> > It seems that you came into this group with preconceptions. In my
> > experience people will usually find evidence to support their
> > preconceptions, and ignore evidence against it. Perhaps an open mind
> > would have been better?
> Ah, the open mind. I came here with hope. Read most of the other
> responses and you'll see where that went...
> As for evidence; go to any other "discussion" group with the same
> topic anywhere else on the internet. This is a clone. Scientific
> American Magazine's website is wrought with the same attitudes,
> whereas I held high hopes for discussion.
> > > Atheists groups like this are 99% angry people who aren't actually
> > > interested in intelligent discussion, but are trying to bait a non-
> > > atheist into a flame war.
> > I'd like to know what your basis is for this. Even if you perceive a
> > lack of intelligent discussion, you should recognize that this does
> > not necessarily reflect a lack of interest. After all, it takes two
> > people to hold an intelligent discussion and I often find myself
> > lacking a partner on the theistic side. The tactics and ideas that the
> > Christians adhere to out and out forbid it. Even the more intelligent
> > Christians still adhere to flawed arguments and logic to make their
> > points, refusing to admit even when shown conclusively how they are
> > wrong. Exactly how do you propose intelligent discussion develop
> > against such blatent ignorance? And, for those of us genuinely
> > interested in intelligent discussion, why should that not make us
> > angry?
> Because emotions cloud the discussion. They are not "persuasive."
> Both sides should debate their side, attack the other side with proofs
> and facts. (that'll get a major response!) If you were standing face-
> to-face with someone, would you be shouting and jabbing them in the
> chest with your finger? Demeaning someone into submission isn't the
> same as persuading. If someone refuses to use any logic at all, the
> response isn't to go maniacal. Neither side has accomplished a
> thing. You've lost your integrity either way.
> > > There is SOME intelligent discussion here,
> > > but it's not worth looking throu all the rubbish to find it. These
> > > furious people know that they'll always win because the people they
> > > wish to attack will not respond "in-kind," that is, abjectly hateful
> > > language, cursing, name-calling, and outright tirades. The picture
> > > you are painting of atheists is that you're all hateful old codgers
> > > hiding in your basement screaming at the screens as you type holes
> > > through your keyboard with every angry jab.
> > It always amazes me that someone could come here and lay such
> > accusations against atheists and remain completely oblivious to the
> > same type of activity on the other side. It's evident enough not to be
> > missed by someone without preconceptions who is reading this group.
> > That forces me to conclude that either your preconceptions have
> > clouded your judgement, or you are simply being dishonest in not
> > including theists in your assessment.
> Aaahh, but read the threads and look for the baiting. So many people
> just spoiling for a fight--from either side, but definitely there's a
> more aggressive side.
> > > The atheists I've met in real life were thoughtful and weren't
> > > arrogant enough to claim that they were actually no more than
> > > agnostics.
> > That is probably because people most commonly use the terms "atheist"
> > and "agnostic" incorrectly. Here's a tip: if you do not answer the
> > question "Does god exist" with a "Yes", then you are an atheist.
> > Period.
> a⋅the⋅ist
> noun
> a person who denies or disbelieves the existence of a supreme being or
> beings.
> ag⋅nos⋅tic
> noun
> 1. a person who holds that the existence of the ultimate cause, as
> God, and the essential nature of things are unknown and unknowable, or
> that human knowledge is limited to experience.
> 2. a person who denies or doubts the possibility of ultimate
> knowledge in some area of study.
> > The internet allows for people to explore avenues unavailable to them
> > in real life and I consider that a benefit. In America, especially,
> > there is a social stigma about being a non-theist that would prevent
> > the tope of colaboration and expression of ideas you find here.
> Now THERE's an interesting topic altogether. That could be a very
> interesting subject, unfortunately off-topic. Is this healthy? If we
> spend enough time venting this online, is it just healthy venting or
> is it going to change the way we act in real life? Interesting
> point. Also, the term, "tope of collaboration" is an interesting way
> of putting it if it means what I think you intended. The problem
> isn't so much that the social stigma disallows discussion, but it does
> frown upon shouting matches with people who would rather shout you
> into submission rather than persuade you. Sometimes people have to
> realize that they won't agree, but can explore the other's beliefs in
> an effort to learn. I've found that the people I disagree with most,
> philosophically speaking, have ended up being my closest friends
> because we made an effort to understand each other, knowing we
> couldn't persuade the other. Abusing someone for not agreeing with
> you does not make you more than you were before the discussion.
> > > Those of you flaming about logic-this and logic-that should consider
> > > that no conclusion can be made without the facts. When, exactly, did
> > > you get that last iota of information that decided it all for you?
> > I don't know. I didn't write it down. The facts, however, force me to
> > conclude that Yaweh, God and Allah do not exist.
> So, you have all the facts? You could make a bundle if you
> published. <grin>
> > > Of course, you'll flame me now, but that won't bother me one bit,
> > > because upon my first read of this group, I realized there was not
> > > enough intelligent conversation here to warrant dealing with the
> > > hateful, unthinking (however, all-knowledgeable) codgers hacking at
> > > their keyboards in their dark basements.
> > > Maybe the group is misnamed? It's a one-sided battle from what I can
> > > see here. Hmm... Maybe "Atheism Completely And Utterly Annihiliates
> > > The Christian Girly Men With Their Mighty Nuclear-Powered Tongues"
> > > Of course, no self-respecting Christian would waste his time on you
> > > any more than you'd waste your time peeing on a burning Christian...
> > It would seem, then, that you lack self-respect.
> Yes, I figured I'd check back with this to see if I was right. I have
> to admit I wasn't completely correct in my presumption. There's
> actually been a few decent responses. Much of it was flame, but
> thanks for the glimmer of hope of discussion. You've actually
> persuaded me to watch the group a few days in the hope of gleaning a
> few tidbits of positive discussion. The problem is that I still have
> to deal with the codgers, too, but such is life.
> You still had to go with the crowd on that last remark, though. Had
> to get that jab in, eh? heheh.
> I'd just read flame after flame after flame before I'd posted the
> topic. If you can honestly tell me that I was absolutely incorrect
> and that this is a friendly, intelligent discussion group, I don't
> think you're being quite objective. Read this from both sides. I'm
> trying to do that because it'll give me a better perspective, but it's
> hard to sympathize with so much anger.
> Mate, if a person was burning, I wouldn't be hanging around
> to see if s/he was a Christian or not. I'd be in there helping to
> put out the fire. I think you condemn yourself by your own words
> and what is truly in your own self-deluded mind. I'll be happy if
> you don't return. Goodbye!
> Oh, you are an arrogant prick to condemn all atheists as being
> similar. Nothing further from the truth. Just as in Christianity -
> there are no two people who are entirely similar - you demean
> the God you claim to serve. Would s/he be so stupid as to
> make creation all the same? The last time I looked out the
> window (just now) I witnessed a huge diversity.
> Duh, go and get yourself an education - you need one, or
> the research shows you will likely develop Alzeimer's
> Disease - oops, my apologies, maybe you already have it.
> That would certainly explain your post. Enjoy your unremarkable
> life.
> On Dec 2, 5:17 am, ObservantEye <mike.sh...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > I have to say, I joined this group, guessing at exactly what it would
> > contain, and I was, sadly, correct.
> > Atheists groups like this are 99% angry people who aren't actually
> > interested in intelligent discussion, but are trying to bait a non-
> > atheist into a flame war. There is SOME intelligent discussion here,
> > but it's not worth looking throu all the rubbish to find it. These
> > furious people know that they'll always win because the people they
> > wish to attack will not respond "in-kind," that is, abjectly hateful
> > language, cursing, name-calling, and outright tirades. The picture
> > you are painting of atheists is that you're all hateful old codgers
> > hiding in your basement screaming at the screens as you type holes
> > through your keyboard with every angry jab.
> > The atheists I've met in real life were thoughtful and weren't
> > arrogant enough to claim that they were actually no more than
> > agnostics.
> > Those of you flaming about logic-this and logic-that should consider
> > that no conclusion can be made without the facts. When, exactly, did
> > you get that last iota of information that decided it all for you?
> > Of course, you'll flame me now, but that won't bother me one bit,
> > because upon my first read of this group, I realized there was not
> > enough intelligent conversation here to warrant dealing with the
> > hateful, unthinking (however, all-knowledgeable) codgers hacking at
> > their keyboards in their dark basements.
> > Maybe the group is misnamed? It's a one-sided battle from what I can
> > see here. Hmm... Maybe "Atheism Completely And Utterly Annihiliates
> > The Christian Girly Men With Their Mighty Nuclear-Powered Tongues"
> > Of course, no self-respecting Christian would waste his time on you
> > any more than you'd waste your time peeing on a burning Christian...- Hide quoted text -
> I have to say, I joined this group, guessing at exactly what it would
> contain, and I was, sadly, correct.
> Atheists groups like this are 99% angry people who aren't actually
> interested in intelligent discussion, but are trying to bait a non-
> atheist into a flame war. There is SOME intelligent discussion here,
> but it's not worth looking throu all the rubbish to find it. These
> furious people know that they'll always win because the people they
> wish to attack will not respond "in-kind," that is, abjectly hateful
> language, cursing, name-calling, and outright tirades. The picture
> you are painting of atheists is that you're all hateful old codgers
> hiding in your basement screaming at the screens as you type holes
> through your keyboard with every angry jab.
> The atheists I've met in real life were thoughtful and weren't
> arrogant enough to claim that they were actually no more than
> agnostics.
> Those of you flaming about logic-this and logic-that should consider
> that no conclusion can be made without the facts. When, exactly, did
> you get that last iota of information that decided it all for you?
> Of course, you'll flame me now, but that won't bother me one bit,
> because upon my first read of this group, I realized there was not
> enough intelligent conversation here to warrant dealing with the
> hateful, unthinking (however, all-knowledgeable) codgers hacking at
> their keyboards in their dark basements.
> Maybe the group is misnamed? It's a one-sided battle from what I can
> see here. Hmm... Maybe "Atheism Completely And Utterly Annihiliates
> The Christian Girly Men With Their Mighty Nuclear-Powered Tongues"
> Of course, no self-respecting Christian would waste his time on you
> any more than you'd waste your time peeing on a burning Christian...
On Mon, Dec 1, 2008 at 4:30 PM, Neil Kelsey <neil_kel...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On Dec 1, 1:19 pm, "Turner Hayes" <lordlacol...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > I mean, come on, how can you respect yourself and believe you are a
> wretched
> > sinner who deserves nothing more than an eternity in hell at the same
> time?
> *good* *point*
> But most of the time I don't buy that they really see themselves as
> sinners.
Probably not, but that belief is absolutely the core of Christianity (and
most religions, incidentally)--without that belief, the "sacrifice" of Jesus
is useless and meaningless (why do we need a savior if we're not "depraved",
as Brock so gleefully puts it). They like to say that their religion is all
about love and forgiveness and shit, but they're lying or mistaken. All that
"God's love" is pointless if we don't need it to live a good life/get into
Heaven. So, as much as the phrase "true Christian" get well-deserved flak
around here, I think you could argue that anyone who DOESN'T see himself as
a sinner isn't a "true Christian", in the sense that he does not ACTUALLY
believe the core tenets of Christianity.
On Dec 1, 2:17 pm, ObservantEye <mike.sh...@gmail.com> wrote:
> The picture
> you are painting of atheists is that you're all hateful old codgers
> hiding in your basement screaming at the screens as you type holes
> through your keyboard with every angry jab.
Its clearly an insightful commentary on the limitations of the "new
atheism".
> Of course, no self-respecting Christian would waste his time on you
"Labeling Atheists
Some Christians have labeled atheists as stupid, devil-worshippers, or
morally void. Though there may be some atheists who fit these
categories (as would many in the general population), atheists are not
categorically stupid, devil-worshipping, degenerates with no morals.
Many of them are fine citizens, honest, caring, loving, and patient.
For a Christian, or anyone for that matter, to make a blanket
statement about atheists in a derogatory manner is wrong. It is the
same thing atheists sometimes do when they accuse Christians of being
irrational, psychotic, or stupid. Such accusations have no place on
either side of the argument of truth.
Generally speaking, atheists are not stupid. Many of them have thought
through their position over a long period of time and arrive at
conclusions after much thought. Some were raised in religious homes,
have seen what religion has to offer, and have rejected it. Of course,
I think that atheists have drawn incorrect conclusions about God, but
it doesn't mean they are dumb. Some atheists have presented very
cogent arguments against the existence of God, which need to be
addressed.
So, just because someone believes in God and encounters someone who
doesn't, that does not mean that either side is stupid. Labeling and
name-calling have no place in the discussion.
Ignoring Atheists' Questions
If you were standing on a railroad track and a train was heading your
way, closing your eyes and ignoring the locomotive will not make it go
away. If an atheist asks a question and you ignore it repeatedly, it
would be fair for him to conclude you were incapable of answering the
objection. Of course, this does not mean you have to always answer
everything because dialogue flows both ways. But, it is important
that you face issues. If you don't have an answer, admit it. That's
okay. It doesn't mean you are wrong. It means you don't have an
answer. Go study and get an answer and get back to him.
Stating that Atheism is a religion
Atheists will repeatedly tell you that they are not in a religion. A
religion almost always is defined to include belief in a deity of some
sort. Atheism is non-belief in a deity. It isn't necessarily a "belief
that there is no God," (though it can be)but is "not believing either
way."
To label an atheist as a religious person is to put up a roadblock to
effective communication. It would be like someone saying to a
Christian, "You believe in a mean, tyrannical being who likes to
torture people." The Christian would simply roll his eyes and think
that the person doesn't know what he's talking about. So, how much
effective conversation could there be in either instance? Not much.
Stating unsupportable facts
No one has all documentation for everything they say. It is not
reasonable to require proof from an atheist on everything said.
Nevertheless, if you are going to state a fact or two, it is good to
have the documentation at the tip of your tongue -- at least
occasionally, of have access to it. It adds to your credibility. Of
course, you don't have to document everything, but if you have some
illustrious fact to use, try and have it documented.
Never admitting when you are wrong
Pride is a harmful thing. It caused the fall. It ruins marriages.
It leads to anger and self-righteousness. It has no place in the
Christian's life. Never admitting you are wrong is being prideful.
If an atheist, or anyone, proves you wrong is something, be kind and
courteous. Admit you made a mistake and go on. Everyone makes
mistakes, even atheists. There is nothing wrong with admitting an
error. It no more proves you are wrong about Christianity than being
wrong about the color of a boat means boats don't exist. But, if you
never admit when you are wrong, you will not be able to convince
anyone in a discussion of your position. You will simply lose the
respect of the one with whom you are debating."
> On Dec 1, 2:17 pm, ObservantEye <mike.sh...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > The picture
> > you are painting of atheists is that you're all hateful old codgers
> > hiding in your basement screaming at the screens as you type holes
> > through your keyboard with every angry jab.
> Its clearly an insightful commentary on the limitations of the "new
> atheism".
> > Of course, no self-respecting Christian would waste his time on you
On 1 déc, 21:52, Brock <brockor...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Dec 1, 2:17 pm, ObservantEye <mike.sh...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > The picture
> > you are painting of atheists is that you're all hateful old codgers
> > hiding in your basement screaming at the screens as you type holes
> > through your keyboard with every angry jab.
> Its clearly an insightful commentary on the limitations of the "new
> atheism".
Meanwhile, at least six times in the last 10 days I have called your
attention to nice examples of "new christianity" where invectives and
vitriol were abundant.
Yet, here you are, still spewing your bullshit about "new
atheism" (whatever that is), while never even once, commenting on the
same behaviour from theists.
Of course, you know what we call such a person as yourself.
A dishonest biased prick.
__________________________________________
Whenever morality is based on theology, whenever right is made
dependent on divine authority, the most immoral, unjust, infamous
things can be justified and established.
-- Ludwig Feuerbach
> On Mon, Dec 1, 2008 at 4:30 PM, Neil Kelsey <neil_kel...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > On Dec 1, 1:19 pm, "Turner Hayes" <lordlacol...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > I mean, come on, how can you respect yourself and believe you are a
> > wretched
> > > sinner who deserves nothing more than an eternity in hell at the same
> > time?
> > *good* *point*
> > But most of the time I don't buy that they really see themselves as
> > sinners.
> Probably not, but that belief is absolutely the core of Christianity (and
> most religions, incidentally)--without that belief, the "sacrifice" of Jesus
> is useless and meaningless (why do we need a savior if we're not "depraved",
> as Brock so gleefully puts it). They like to say that their religion is all
> about love and forgiveness and shit, but they're lying or mistaken. All that
> "God's love" is pointless if we don't need it to live a good life/get into
> Heaven. So, as much as the phrase "true Christian" get well-deserved flak
> around here, I think you could argue that anyone who DOESN'T see himself as
> a sinner isn't a "true Christian", in the sense that he does not ACTUALLY
> believe the core tenets of Christianity.
I agree with you, but I'm finding it weird that the ones who seem the
loudest about being depraved sinners (e.g. Brock, e.g. thea. e.g.
preachers) come across as being the most in love with themselves.
|
